It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic
You came back!
Taking a break from you Letting It Happen articles to chime in with another irrelevant conspiracy theory?
So what do you have to say about robertz's assertion that it was newly poured concrete?
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I'm neither convinced nor left thinking the notion is laughable as you put it.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
like EVERYONE on this forum, I was clearly speculating about the possibility of it being freshly poured.
The last photo Craig posted makes me lean toward it not being a fresh pour. This however does NOT provide any credence to the ridiculous claims that Craig has posted in here that he has no doubt that the contractors were in on it.
I also find it hard to believe that with a multi ton collapse, there was zero damage done to the floor.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I also find it hard to believe that with a multi ton collapse, there was zero damage done to the floor.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
like EVERYONE on this forum, I was clearly speculating about the possibility of it being freshly poured.
Wrong.
robertz was quite certain of it and even went so far as to call me out as if the entire basis of this thread had been completely debunked.
but robertz was and remains quite certain of this lunacy.
I wonder if he is still so confident now that even his only supporter has abandoned his theory!
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You said "EVERYONE" on this forum was merely "speculating" about this.
You are wrong.
robertz was asserting it rather strongly and even said he had completely debunked the thread based solely on this claim.
You jumped on the bandwagon and even ignored the image I posted and forced me to repost it again after pages of arguing about it before you finally admitted there was little merit.
The way you still hold on to a shred of possibility that it's true is quite comical.
Either the concrete in question was poured within a day or two or it wasn't
Clearly it wasn't but facts aren't important to you.
like EVERYONE on this forum, I was clearly speculating about the possibility of it being freshly poured.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If you feel compelled you e-mail them...please do. It is Monday... and being a Red Sox fan I was up VERY late last night and out the door at 5 am.... And my boss called out sick again.... yadda yadda....
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Craig you stated in the past that you were bringing all your information to the media AND you suspected there would be a grand jury investigation.
YOU also stated that the contractors were involved in the conspiracy. You actually stated it I believe on page two of this thread.
I didn't tell you to call them and ask them if they killed the people...I asked you to do your "Leave no stone turned" style of investigating that you and Waldo do.
You made the claim... you back it up.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I still believe there will be a grand jury investigation and we are constantly approaching media. It is no secret that evidence against the 9/11 official story is margianlized, demonized, and ingnored by media and authorities.
I have never stated that there would DEFINITELY be a grand jury and the fact that there hasn't been one yet does not disprove the evidence we present.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
His name is Aldo and as stated, calling people and asking them if they participated in a crime of mass murder is not a logical approach and would serve no purpose.
We have never claimed to know what individuals or contracting companies were involved.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We provide evidence proving the official story is a lie which proves somebody had to have been involved.
It is not our responsibility to determine exactly who the perpetrators are and we have no intentions of trying to do so.
That should be the entire focus of the "new investigation" that we call for.
We have made no claims that are not backed up by the evidence we present.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I will bet my house and a year's salary that it never happens. If your evidence was as solid as you thought, you would have had your grand jury investigation. Fact is... it's not.
I asked you to INVESTIGATE them. I didn't tell you to thumb your noses at them and call them murderers. (which you are)
Not true. You have implicated some of the private contractors as being in on it. True, you didn't say WHICH ones. I posted the information on the contractors that built the walls, electricians, engineers..etc. Is it unfair to ask you to prove that one of not all of them were in on it? You have Zero evidence to back up this claim.
Your claim to the flyover theory is a claim that you have no evidence for. You have 4 witnesses that claimed to see the plane fly on the North Side of the Citgo.(and two calimed to have seen the impact) Thats it. You have ZERO witnesses that saw a flyover! None, nada, Ziltch.
Well... he saw theplane on the North side... BUT ... he was mistaken when he saw it slam into the side of the Pentagon.
Sorry...don't work that way.
I still believe there will be a grand jury investigation and we are constantly approaching media
It is no secret that evidence against the 9/11 official story is margianlized, demonized, and ingnored by media and authorities.
We provide evidence proving the official story is a lie which proves somebody had to have been involved.
That should be the entire focus of the "new investigation" that we call for.
North of the citgo IS evidence for a military deception including a flyover whether or not you continue to live in denial about it.
I suppose you could come up with your own theory with what happened to the plane after it flew north of the citgo but we believe the most logical and rational hypothesis based on this evidence is that the plane flew over the building.
North of the citgo testimony proves flyover and you have provided NOTHING to refute it.
Source